Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1621 (ALL)

Bharat Bhushan v. State of U. P.

2014-05-19

ANIL KUMAR SHARMA

body2014
JUDGMENT Anil Kumar Sharma, J.: - The Court is compelled to undertake this unpleasant exercise as during the course of proceedings of the appeal it was found that Km. Farah Matloob, the then Chief Judicial Magistrate, Saharanpur in flagrant violation of the Court's order dated 12.2.2014 and without following the normal practice of the subordinate Court has granted bail to the appellant vide order dated 10.3.2014. 2. The brief history of the case is that on 12.2.2014 due to non-appearance of the counsel for the appellant in the Court even on revised call of the case, following order was passed: "Case has been taken up in the revised list. Counsel for the appellant is not present. In compliance of the order of the Court dated 22.04.2013 the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Saharanpur vide report dated 12.02.2013 has reported that Appellant No.2 Ramji Das has died, therefore, the appeal of Appellant No.2 abates. Since counsel for the appellant is not present, therefore, issue non-bailable warrant of arrest against Appellant No.1. In the event of arrest of Appellant No.1 he should be lodged in District Jail, Saharanpur under intimation to this Court. The compliance report be submitted positively within six weeks. Trial court record has also not been received and the same be summoned at once. List thereafter." 3. On 26.3.2014, following order was passed: "Sri Ajeet Kumar Solanki, learned counsel for the appellant submits that he has filed parcha in the registry on 24.3.2014 but his name is not printed in the cause list. Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record. In para 5 and 6 of the supplementary affidavit, it is averred that pursuant to order of this Court dated 12.2.2014, appellant no. 1 - Bharat Bhushan was arrested by the local police on 10.3.2014 and produced before the C.J.M., Saharanpur, who has released him on bail the same day. It has been averred that the applicant is not getting answer to his questionnaire filed on 21.3.2014 from the court of C.J.M. The order of this Court dated 12.2.2014 states that in the event of arrest of the appellant no. 1, he was to be lodged in District Jail, Saharanpur under intimation of this Court and the compliance report was to be submitted positively within six weeks. No compliance report has been received so far. 1, he was to be lodged in District Jail, Saharanpur under intimation of this Court and the compliance report was to be submitted positively within six weeks. No compliance report has been received so far. There was no order for the Chief Judicial Magistrate that he would grant bail to the appellant no. 1 after his surrender in the court or being produced by the police in custody. In these circumstances, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Saharanpur is directed to explain his conduct and to show cause why appropriate action be not recommended against him for non-compliance of the Court's order dated 12.2.2014. The C.J.M. would specifically submit reply on affidavit on the contents of para nos. 5 and 6 of the supplementary affidavit filed by Nitin Rajpal son of the appellant no. 1. Copy of the affidavit be sent to the Chief Judicial Magistrate for compliance. Further, the Chief Judicial Magistrate is directed to produce attested copy of the G.D. dated 10.3.2014 pertaining to police station - Janakpuri, District- Saharanpur as also the police report, the remand papers regarding the custody and bail of the appellant. Compliance report be submitted by the Chief Judicial Magistrate by appearing in person in the Court on 22.4.2014. The appellant no. 1 would also appear in person on that date. List on 22.4.2014. Let copy of this order be sent to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Saharanpur through FAX as well as by registered post within three days." 4. In the annual transfer of 2014, Km. Farah Matloob was locally shifted as Judge Small Causes Court, so on 22.4.2014 along with her the new incumbent in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Saharanpur - Smt. Neetu Pathak also appeared in the Court filed their respective affidavits in compliance with the order dated 26.3.2014 and after hearing them and parties' counsel, following order was passed: "In compliance with the order dated 26.03.2014 Km. Farah Matloob, the then Chief Judicial Magistrate, Saharanpur (presently Judge Small Causes Court, Saharanpur), Smt. Neetu Pathak, present Chief Judicial Magistrate, Saharanpur and the appellant no.1 are present in person. Both the lady officers have filed their respective affidavits, which are taken on record. In her affidavit Km. Farah Matloob, the then Chief Judicial Magistrate, Saharanpur (presently Judge Small Causes Court, Saharanpur), Smt. Neetu Pathak, present Chief Judicial Magistrate, Saharanpur and the appellant no.1 are present in person. Both the lady officers have filed their respective affidavits, which are taken on record. In her affidavit Km. Farah Matloob has admitted that on 10.03.2014 appellant Bharat Bhushan was produced in her court by police of P.S. Janakpuri, Saharanpur after his arrest on non-bailable warrant issued by this Court and she had granted him bail the same day. She has tendered unconditional apology stating that she has 10 years' of unblemished service career as judicial officer. On 26.03.2014 supplementary affidavit was filed by Nitin Rajpal son of appellant no.1 which was taken on record. Calling for an explanation of the Chief Judicial Magistrate for releasing the appellant on bail in defiance of the order of the Court dated 12.02.2014 the C.J.M. was directed to submit reply of paragraphs 5 and 6 of the supplementary affidavit and it was further directed that copy of the affidavit be sent to the Chief Judicial Magistrate for compliance. The said affidavit is not on record. On perusal of the record it is found that the C.J.M. Saharanpur vide letter dated 29.03.2014 has written a letter to Section Officer (Criminal Section) of the Court stating that she had not received the copy of the supplementary affidavit and the same be sent to her for filing reply. It appears that office has sent the original supplementary affidavit to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Saharanpur. It is highly objectionable because there was no direction of the court to send original affidavit to Chief Judicial Magistrate, Saharanpur. In these circumstances no order about the misconduct of the Chief Judicial Magistrate in releasing the Appellant No.1 on bail is being passed. Suffice it to say that Chief Judicial Magistrate has illegally granted bail to Appellant No.1, therefore, she is directed to show cause within 10 days as to why the bail granted to him by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Saharanpur on 10.03.2014 be not cancelled. The office is directed to call back the original supplementary affidavit of Navin Rajpal from the office of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Saharanpur immediately, which should be sent to the Court through special messenger immediately. Since the order dated 10.03.2014 was passed by Km. The office is directed to call back the original supplementary affidavit of Navin Rajpal from the office of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Saharanpur immediately, which should be sent to the Court through special messenger immediately. Since the order dated 10.03.2014 was passed by Km. Farah Matloob who has now taken over as Judge, Small Causes Court, Saharanpur on 15.04.2014 and she had been succeeded by Smt. Neetu Pathak, therefore, presence of Smt. Pathak was not required at all. The future attendance of the aforesaid Judicial Officers is exempted till further orders. Km. Farah Matloob would be represented by Sri Sudhir Mehrotra, Special Counsel of the Allahabad High Court till final order is passed about her misconduct. List on 06.05.2014 as first case of daily cause list." 5. Along with the supplementary affidavit Km. The future attendance of the aforesaid Judicial Officers is exempted till further orders. Km. Farah Matloob would be represented by Sri Sudhir Mehrotra, Special Counsel of the Allahabad High Court till final order is passed about her misconduct. List on 06.05.2014 as first case of daily cause list." 5. Along with the supplementary affidavit Km. Farah Matloob has filed the required papers along with the copy of bail application and bail order passed by her on 10.3.2014, which reads as under: "10-3-2014 ek- mPp U;k;ky; ds }kjk tkjh fd;s x;s xSj tekurh; okjaV dh dEIyka;l ij vfHk;qDr Hkkjr Hkw"k.k iq= Jh jketh nkl fuoklh ][kku vkyeiqjk Fkkuk tudiqjh ftyk lgkjuiqj tks fdz0 fj0 la[;k 740@89 Lis'ky dsl la[;k 28@88 Hkkjr Hkw"k.k cuke m0 iz0 jkT; vUrxZr/kkjk 3@7 ih-0 ,e0 ,0 vf/k0 Fkkuk tudiqjh ftyk lgkjuiqj ds vijk/k esa iqfyl }kjk fxjQ~rkj dj U;k;ky; ds le{k mifLFkr fd;k x;k vfHk;qDr U;kf;d vfHkj{kk esa gSA vfHk;qDr dh vksj ls izkFkZuk i= nsrs gq;s ;g dgk x;k gS fd izkFkhZ vf/kd vk;q gks tkus ds dkj.k py fQj ldus esa l{ke ugha gksus ds dkj.k ek0 mPp U;k;ky; esa mifLFkr ugha gks ldk gS mlus tkucw>dj dksbZ xyrh ugha dh gS rFkk og izR;sd frfFk ij U;k;ky; esa mifLFkr gksrk jgsxkA vr% mls tekur ij NksM+us dh izkFkZuk dh xbZ gSA lquk A izLrqr izi=ksa dk voyksdu fd;kA izi=ksa ds ifj'khyu ls nf'kZr gS fd vfHk;qDr iwoZ ls ek0 mPp U;k;ky; ls tekur ij FkkA vr% rF;ksa ,oa ifjfLFkfr;ksa ds n`f"Vxr vkosnd@vfHk;qDr dks tekur ij NksM+s tkus dk vk/kkj Ik;kZIr gS vkSj tekur izkFkZuki= Lohdkj fd;k tkus ;ksX; gSA vkns'k vkosnd dks] mlds }kjk : 0 25 gtkj dk O;fDrxr cU/ki= ,oa leku/kujkf'k ds nks tekurh nkf[ky djus ij tekur ij fjgk fd;k tkrk gSA vfHk;qDr bl vk'k; dh vUMjVsfdax nsuk Hkh lqfuf'pr djas fd og fnukd 28-03-2014 dks ek0 mPp U;k;ky; ds le{k O;fDrxr : i ls mifLFkr gksxkA g0 Qjkg erywc 10-3-2014 eq[; U;kf;d eftLVªsV lgkjuiqj " 6. In the order dated 12.2.2014 while issuing non-bailable warrant of arrest of the appellant no. 1 (Bharat Bhushan) for execution to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Saharanpur it was specifically directed that in the event of arrest of appellant no. 1, he should be lodged in District Jail, Saharanpur under intimation to this Court. In the order dated 12.2.2014 while issuing non-bailable warrant of arrest of the appellant no. 1 (Bharat Bhushan) for execution to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Saharanpur it was specifically directed that in the event of arrest of appellant no. 1, he should be lodged in District Jail, Saharanpur under intimation to this Court. There was no direction for the CJM to release the appellant on bail or to obtain an undertaking from him to appear before this Court on 28.3.2014 in person. Perusal of the the copy of bail application filed on behalf of the appellant no. 1 before the CJM and the order aforesaid clearly show that neither any notice of the bail application was given to the Prosecuting Officer nor an opportunity of hearing was provided to him. The bail was granted by the learned CJM to the appellant no. 1 then and there as if he was an accused of having committed a bailable offence. 7. Sri Mehrotra valiantly defending the conduct of the then CJM has placed reliance of Paras-15 and 16 of the affidavit filed by Km. Farah Matloob which read as under: "15. That the deponent with profound respect to this Hon'ble Court submits that she has tried to secure the compliance of the order dated 12.2.2014 and has also submitted the report through letter dated 27.3.2014 bringing on record the fact of execution of non-bailable warrant of arrest, production of accused before the Court, grant of bail as well as execution of undertaking by the accused. Copies of police report, GD of police station, copy of bail order, copy of bail application, copies of personal bond of accused and sureties bonds, undertaking executed by the accused is collectively filed as Annexure-4. 16. That the deponent humbly submits that she has passed the order dated 10.3.2014 in discharge of judicial function bona fidely, without any ill-will or disrespect to this Hon'ble Court. 16. That the deponent humbly submits that she has passed the order dated 10.3.2014 in discharge of judicial function bona fidely, without any ill-will or disrespect to this Hon'ble Court. That the deponent further submits that any shortcoming as noticed by this Hon'ble Court in the order dated 26.3.2014, for which the deponent at the cost of repetition again tenders unconditional apology from the core of her heart with a further assurance was that she will be more particular and cautious in future while securing the compliance of any judicial order and will try to comply the same in its letter and spirits and as such the deponent humbly prays that she may be pardoned by this Hon'ble Court by showing mercy upon the deponent and for this act of kindness the deponent shall ever pray." 8. In K. P. Tiwari Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1994 SC 1031 , where the High Court reversed the order passed by the lower court making remarks about interestedness and motive of the lower court in passing the unmerited order, the Apex Court observed that one of the functions of the higher court is either to modify or set aside erroneous orders passed by the lower courts. Our legal system acknowledges fallibility of judges. It has to be kept in mind that a subordinate judicial officer works mostly in a charged atmosphere. He is under a psychological pressure -- contestants and lawyers breathing down his neck. He does not enjoy the detached atmosphere of the higher court. Every error, however gross it may be, should not be attributed to improper motives. The Judges of the High Court have a responsibility to ensure judicial discipline and respect for the judiciary from all concerned. No greater damage can be done to the administration of justice and to the confidence of the people in the judiciary if the higher courts express lack of faith in the subordinate judiciary for some reason or other. That amounts to destruction of judiciary from within. 9. In Kashi Nath Roy Vs. The State of Bihar AIR 1996 SC 3240 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed under a similar circumstance that in our system appellate and revisional courts have been set up with the presupposition that the lower courts in some measure of cases can go wrong in decision making in law and in fact. 9. In Kashi Nath Roy Vs. The State of Bihar AIR 1996 SC 3240 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed under a similar circumstance that in our system appellate and revisional courts have been set up with the presupposition that the lower courts in some measure of cases can go wrong in decision making in law and in fact. The higher courts have been established to correct errors. In cases where intolerable error is pointed out, it is functionally required to correct the error in an appropriate case and in a manner befitting maintaining dignity of the court and independence of the judiciary. The higher court should convey its message in the judgment to the officer concerned through a process of reasoning, essentially persuasive, reasonable, mellowed but clear and result oriented and rarely a rebuke. 10. In Lunjarrao Bhikaji Nagarkar v. Union of India, AIR 1999 SC 2881 , the Supreme Court held that wrong exercise of jurisdiction by a quasi judicial authority or mistake of law or wrong interpretation of law cannot be the basis for initiating disciplinary proceeding. Of course, if the Judicial Officer conducted in a manner as would reflect on his reputation or integrity or good faith or there is a prima facie material to show recklessness or misconduct in discharge of his duties or he had acted in a manner to unduly favour a party or had passed an order actuated by corrupt motive, the High Court by virtue of its power under Art. 235 of the Constitution may exercise its supervisory jurisdiction. Nevertheless, under such circumstances it should be kept in mind that the Judges at all levels have to administer justice without fear or favour. Fearlessness and maintenance of judicial independence are very essential for an efficacious judicial system. Making adverse comments against subordinate judicial officers and subjecting them to severe disciplinary proceedings would ultimately harm the judicial system at the grass root level. 11. Above cases have been followed by Apex Court in the case of Ramesh Chander Singh Vs. High Court of Allahabad and others (2007) 4 SCC 247 , wherein Hon'ble Chief Justice K. G. Balakrishnan in a three-Judge Bench of the Court observed as under: - "The higher court should convey its message in the judgment to the officer concerned through a process of reasoning, essentially persuasive, reasonable, mellowed but clear and result oriented and rarely a rebuke." 12. In the case of Mona Panwar Vs. High Court of Judicature at Allahabad and others (2011) 3 SC 496 the Apex Court expunged the remarks made by the High Court on judicial side against a subordinate judicial officer observing that "to err is human" and the dictum applies even to judges at all levels as it is often said that judge is yet to be born who has not committed any error. Therefore, there is a need to adopt utmost judicial restraint and not to make any disparaging remarks against the members of lower judiciary while sitting in appeal over their judgments and orders. 13. In the preface (1st paragraph) of judgment in the case of Amar Pal Singh Vs. State of U. P. 2012 (78) ACC 520 (SC) the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed: "The present appeal frescoes a picture and exposits a canvas how, despite numerous pronouncements of this Court, while dealing with the defensibility of an order passed by a Judge of subordinate Court when it is under assail before the superior Court in appeal or revision, the imperative necessity of use of temperate and sober language warranting total restraint regard being had to the fact that a judicial officer is undefended and further, more importantly, such unwarranted observations, instead of enhancing the respect for the judiciary, creates a concavity in the hierarchical system and brings the judiciary downhill, has been totally ostracized. Further, the trend seems to be persistent like an incurable cnacerous cell which explodes out at the slightest imbalance." 14. Case of Amar Pal Singh was followed by the Apex Court in the case of Awani Kumar Upadhyay Vs. High Court of Judicature at Allahabad JT 2013 (3) SC 32. In para-12 of the report, it was held - "(12) It is made clear that we are not undermining the ultimate decision of the High Court on merits. However, we are constrained to observe that the higher courts every day come across orders of the lower courts which are not justified either in law or in fact and modify them or set them aside. Our legal system acknowledges the fallibility of the Judges, hence it provides appeals and revisions. However, we are constrained to observe that the higher courts every day come across orders of the lower courts which are not justified either in law or in fact and modify them or set them aside. Our legal system acknowledges the fallibility of the Judges, hence it provides appeals and revisions. Inasmuch as the lower judicial officers mostly work under a charged atmosphere and are constantly under psychological pressure and they do not have the facilities which are available in the higher courts, we are of the view that the remarks/observations and strictures are to be avoided particularly if the officer has no occasion to put-forth his reasonings. Further, if the passage complained of is wholly irrelevant and unjustifiable and its retention on the records will cause serious harm to the persons to whom it refers and its expunction will not affect the reasons for the judgment or order, request for expunging those remarks are to be allowed. We, once again, reiterate that harsh or disparaging remarks are not to be made against judicial officers and authorities whose conduct comes into consideration before courts of law unless it is really for the decision of the case as an integral part thereof." 15. In the case of V. K. Jain Vs. High Court of Delhi through R. G. (2008) 17 SCC 538 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has crystallized the law on the point as under: (I) Erosion of credibility of judiciary in the public mind, for whatever reason, is the greatest threat to the independence of judiciary. (II) Judicial discipline and restraint are imperative for the orderly administration of justice. (III) Judicial decorum makes it imperative that the courts' judgments and orders must be confined to the facts and the legal position involved in the cases and the courts should not deviate from propriety, moderation and sobriety. (IV) Majesty of Court is not displayed solely in cracking the whip on mistakes, inadvertent errors or lapses, but by persuasive reasoning so that the similar errors and mistakes are not repeated by the judicial officers. (V) Majesty of Court would be enhanced by practicing discipline and self-restraint in discharging of all judicial functions. All actions of a judge must be judicious in character. (VI) The role of superior courts is like a friend, philosopher and guide of the judiciary subordinate to it. (V) Majesty of Court would be enhanced by practicing discipline and self-restraint in discharging of all judicial functions. All actions of a judge must be judicious in character. (VI) The role of superior courts is like a friend, philosopher and guide of the judiciary subordinate to it. The judicial officers have to be treated with parental care and affection. (VII) The approach of the superior courts ought to be correctional and not to be intended to harm or ruining the judicial career of the officers. (VIII) The superior courts should always bear in mind that the judicial officer is not before it and should ordinarily refrain from passing strictures, derogatory remarks and scathing criticism. The passing of such order without affording a hearing to the judicial officer is clearly violative of the principles of natural justice. (IX) The superior courts should always keep in mind that disparaging and derogatory remarks against the judicial officer would cause incalculable harm of a permanent character having the potentiality of spoiling the judicial career of the concerned officer. Even if those remarks are expunged, it would not completely restitute and restore the harmed judge from the loss of dignity and honour suffered by him. (X) The superior courts should convey its messages to the concerned judicial officers through a process of reasoning highlighting the correct provisions of law, precedents and proper analysis of evidence and material on record, but rarely by passing harsh and derogatory remarks. (XI) The superior courts must always keep in mind that it is a herculean task for the judicial officer to get the derogatory remarks expunged by the superior court. He is compelled to take assistance from lawyers and such a practitioner may be appearing before him. It is embarrassing, humiliating, time consuming and an expensive exercise. (XII) The superior courts must always keep in mind that the much cherished judicial independence must not be presented only from outside but from within, by those who form the integral part of the judicial system. Damage from within has much larger and greater potential for harm than danger from outside. We alone in judicial family can take care of it. (XIII) The superior courts should not use strong, derogatory, disparaging and carping language while criticizing the judicial officers. They must always keep in mind that, like all other human beings, the judicial officers are also not infallible. We alone in judicial family can take care of it. (XIII) The superior courts should not use strong, derogatory, disparaging and carping language while criticizing the judicial officers. They must always keep in mind that, like all other human beings, the judicial officers are also not infallible. Any remarks passed against them may result in incalculable harm resulting in grave injustice. (XIV) The superior courts judges should not be, like a loose cannon, ready to inflict indiscriminate damages whenever they function in judicial capacity. (XV) The superior courts should keep in mind that infliction of uncalled for, unmerited and undeserved remarks clearly amount to abuse of the process of court. (XVI) The superior courts should not allow themselves even momentarily the latitude of ignoring judicial precaution and propriety. (XVII) It must be remembered that the subordinate judicial officers at times work under charged atmosphere and are constantly under psychological pressure with all the contestants and their lawyers almost breathing down their necks and more correctly upto their nostrils. (XVIII) Err is human and no one is infallible. A judge who has not committed an error is yet to be born. Judicial decorum has to be maintained at all times and even where criticism is justified. It must be in a language of utmost restraint always keeping in view that the person making the comment is also fallible. (XIX) Judges of the superior courts have a duty and obligation to ensure judicial discipline and respect for judiciary from all concerned. The respect for the judiciary is not enhanced when judges at the lower level are criticized intemperately and castigated publicly. Our legal system acknowledges the fallibility of the judges and provides for appeals and revisions. (XX) It is the duty and obligation of the judges of the superior courts to ensure that independence of judiciary is not compromised and every judicial officer should feel that he can freely and fearlessly give expression to his own opinion. This is absolutely imperative in maintaining the independence of judiciary. (XXI) The superior courts' judges must always bear in mind that no greater damage can be caused to the administration of justice and to the confidence of people when judges at superior courts express lack of faith either in ability or integrity of subordinate judges." 16. This is absolutely imperative in maintaining the independence of judiciary. (XXI) The superior courts' judges must always bear in mind that no greater damage can be caused to the administration of justice and to the confidence of people when judges at superior courts express lack of faith either in ability or integrity of subordinate judges." 16. Although the act of the then Chief Judicial Magistrate, Saharanpur granting bail to the appellant vide order dated 10.3.2014 without notice to the Public Prosecutor or going through the specific order of this Court dated 12.2.2014, to lodge the appellant in jail under intimation to the Court, is wholly illegal and unpardonable, however, following the law laid down by the Apex Court in the aforementioned cases, considering the long career of Km. Farah Matloob, the then CJM, Saharanpur, and behaving in parentis loco manner I close this chapter by giving a word of caution to her 'to remain careful in future' with a hope that she will not recur such unwarranted act in rest of her service. 17. On 6.5.2014, the Court passed the following order: "Heard Sri Ajit Kumar Solanki, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Sudhir Mehrotra appearing for C.J.M. Saharanpur, learned AGA and perused the record. Pursuant to order dated 12.2.2014, the appellant has not shown any cause to the notice for cancellation of his bail which was illegally granted by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Saharanpur on 10.3.2014. Therefore, the bail granted to the appellant by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Saharanpur on 10.3.2014 is hereby cancelled. The appellant is directed to surrender before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Saharanpur by 9.5.2014. The certificate of surrender may be filed by the appellant by 12th May, 2014. Sri Mehrotra seeks time to argue on behalf of the C.J.M. Saharanpur. List on 12.5.2014." 18. In compliance with the above order, appellant Bharat Bhushan has surrendered in the Court of CJM, Saharanpur on 9.5.2014 and a report to this effect has been received in the Court through FAX. The appellant has filed bail application along with the questionnaire dated 9.5.2014 obtained from the Court of CJM, Saharanpur about his present judicial custody. 19. In compliance with the above order, appellant Bharat Bhushan has surrendered in the Court of CJM, Saharanpur on 9.5.2014 and a report to this effect has been received in the Court through FAX. The appellant has filed bail application along with the questionnaire dated 9.5.2014 obtained from the Court of CJM, Saharanpur about his present judicial custody. 19. Considering the pleas taken by the appellant in his bail application as also his advanced age, it is directed that he may be released on bail on his executing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sharanpur. It is made clear that if on any of the date the counsel for the appellant does not appear in the Court, the bail of the appellant would be cancelled. 20. The office report dated 25.3.2014 states that the lower Court record has been received in the office but it is under search. The office is directed to search and tag the lower Court record with the appeal, else the erring officials would be taken to task. 21. List in the week commencing July 21, 2014 for hearing. 22. Let copy of the order be sent to the District Judge, Saharanpur for communication to Km. Farah Matloob, now JSCC, Saharanpur for information and future guidance. A copy of the order be also sent to Chief Judicial Magistrate, Saharanpur for compliance.